AIR INDIA AND ORS. ETC.versusB.R. AGE AND ORS ETC.

A                           AIR INDJA AND ORS. ETC.
                                       v.
                             B.R. AGE AND ORS ETC.

                                 OCTOBER 10, 1995

B              (S.C. AGARWAL AND B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.J


          Air Cmporations Act, 1953: Seuions 7( 1), (2), 15, 15-A, 34( 1) and 45.

            Central Govenunent-Power to give directions-Scope and extent
C   of-Directions for rcsetVation in se11:ice.~· in Air Indit~Held covered under
    section 34( 1)-Held such directions pe11ain to exercise and pe1fonna11ce of
    fu11ctio11s by the Co1poration-Fu11ctio11s of Cmporation held not confi11ed to
    those specified in section 7-Expressio11 /H1we1:<' a11d 'f1111ctio11s' held illler-
     changeable.

D          In exercise of the power conferred by Section 34(1) of the Air
    Corporations Act, 1953 the Central Government issued directions to the
    appellant-Air Corporation to provide reservations for Scheduled castes
    and Scheduled Tribes in the services under the Corporation. The respon-
    dents challenged the vires of these directi<ms before the High Court of
E   Bombay which held that the power under Section 34(1) was confined to
    giving directions only with respect to "the exercise and performance by the
    Corporation of its functions" and that the expression "functions" in the
    said provisions should be understood in the light of Section 7 of the Act
    which sets out the functions of the Corporation; since regulating the
    conditions of' service of its employees was not a matter specified in Section
F   7, the impugned directions were not within the ambit of Section 34(1) and
    thus beyond the authority of the Central Government. Air India as well as
    its employees belonging to Scheduled Castes preferred appeals before this
    Court.

G         Writ petitions were also filed under Article 32 of the Constitution
    challenging the directions issued by the Central Govt.

         Allowing the appeals and setting aside the judgment of the High
    Court, and dismissing the writ petitions filed under Article 32, this Court

H          HELD : 1. The directions issued by the Central Government ue
                                            196
                              AIR INDIA v. B.R. AGE                            197

    within the four corners of Section 34(1) of the Air Corporations Act and,        A
    therefore, valid and effective. [201-C]

         2. It is true that Section 7 does not set out the functions of the
    Corporation but it would he erroneous to think that the Corporation has
    no other functions except those specified in Section 7. The Air Corporation
    Act speaks of the functions, duties and powers of the Corporation but            B
    powers and functions are used as interchangeable expressions. Regulating
    the service conditions of its employees is referred to as a power in Section
    45, but one may ask, is it not its tunction as well. The very language
    employed in Section 7 establishes t.hat both the expressions were used by
    the Parliament as interchangeable concepts. Thus, when sub-section (2) C
    speaks of powers conferred by sub-section (I), it is obviously speaking of
    the functions of the Corporation but referring to them as "powers". It
    indeed seeks to confer some more po,vers upon the corporation viz., those
    specified in clauses (a) to (I), which are indeed an elaboration and par-
    ticularisation of the functions referred to in sub-section (1). The language
    employed in sub-section (2) of Section 7 thus demolishes the distinction D
    sought to be drawn between powers and functions of the Corporation.
    Therefore, the distinction sought to be drawn between the powers and
    functions is unsustainable and unreal. A reference to certain other
    provisions of the Act including Sections 15 and 15'.A goes indeed to
    re-inforce this view. It follows that the directions in question do pertain to   E
    the exercise and performance by the Corporation of its functions.
                                                            [199-C, G, 200-E-G]
          CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
    No. 325 of 1981.
                                                                                     F
                                        With

          Civil Appeal No. 551 of 1981.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 27.11.80 of the Bombay High
    Court in W.P. No. 1279 of 1978.                                    G

                                        And

          Writ Petition (C) Nos. 145-48 of 1980.

          Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.                             H


'
    198                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A         K.N. Bhat, Narain B. Shetyc, U.A. Rana, RajivTayagi, Anand Prasad
    for Gagrate & Co., P.H. Parekh, Ms. Manish Pradeep, C.V. Francis, Lalit
    Bhasin, Ms. Mina Gupta~ Ms. Kiran, Yincet Kumar, C.S. Srinivasa Rao and
    Ms. A Subhashini, for the appearing parties.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
          B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. Civil Appeal Nos. 325 and 551of1981 are
    preferred against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Bombay
    Higb Court allowing the writ petition filed by respondents, B.R. Age and
    others, and quashing the directions given by the Central Government on
c   July 23, 1975 to Air India to provide reservation for Scheduled Castes and
    Scheduled Tribes in the services under the Corporation. The directions
    were issued under Section 34(1) of the Air Corporations Acts, 1953. The
    directions are very elaborate in nature, the sum and substance whereof is
    to provide reservations in the matter of appointments or posts under the
D   Corporation. The respondents-writ petitioners contended before the Bom-
    bay High Court that the directions so given are ultra vires the powers of
    the Central Government, not being within the ambit of Section 34(1) of the
    said Act. They submitted that the said directions cannot also be justified
    with reference to clause (4) of Article 16 of the Constitution inasmuch as
    before giving the said directions, the Central Government had not formed
E   the requisite satisfaction that the members of Scheduled Castes and
    Scheduled Tribes are not adequately represented in the services under the
    Corporation. The learned Judge has quashed the directions only on the
    first ground. He did not go into the question whether the said directions
    are warranted by clause (4) of Article 16 of the Constitution. Civil Appeal
F   No. 325 of 1981 is preferred by Air India while Civil Appeal No. 551 of
    1981 is preferred by the employees of Air India belonging to Scheduled
    Castes. The Union of India is supporting them in these appeals. Writ
    Petition (C) Nos. 145-148 of 1980 are filed under Article 32 of the Con-
    stitution challenging the constitutional validity of the very same directions
    issued by the Central Government.
G
           Section 34(1) of the Air Corporations Act reads thus : "34(1). The
     Central Government may give to either of the Corporations directions as
     to the exercise and performance by the Corporation of its functions, and
     the Corporation shall be bound to give effect to any such directions." The
H   .High Court was of the view that the power under the said provisions is
            AIR INDIA v. B.R. AGE (B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.]                199

confined to giving directions only with respect to "the exercise and perfor· A
mance by the Corporation of its functions" and that the expression "func-
tions" in the said provisions should be understood in the light of Section 7
of the Act which sets out the functions of the Corporations. The High
Court opined that since regulating the conditions of service of its
employees is ·not a matter specified in Section 7, the said directions are B
beyond the authority of the Central Government. In short, the High Court
understood the functions of the Corporation as confined to those men-
tioned in Section 7 alone. We are unable to agree.

       It is true that Section 7 does set out the "functions of the Corpora-
tion" but it would be erroneous to think that the Corporation has no other C
functions except those specified in Section 7. The Air Corporations Act
speaks of the functions, duties and powers of the Corporation but as we
shall demonstrate presently, powers and functions are used as interchan-
geable expressions. Section 45 empowers the Corporation to make regula-
tions not inconsistent with the Act or the rules made under Section 44 for
the administration of the affairs of the Corporation and for carrying out its D
functions. Sub-section (2) of Section 45 specifies the matters with respect
to which regulations can be made under the said section. Sub-section (2),
insofar as it is relevant, reads thus :

        "45(2). In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the    E
        foregoing power, any such regulations may provide for all or any
        of the following matters, namely :

        (b) the terms and conditions of service of officers and other
        employees of the Corporation other than the managing director
        and officers of any other categories referred to in Section 44."        F

      Regulating the service conditions of its employees is referred to as a
power in Section 45, but one may ask, is it not its function as well. Be that
as it may, the very language employed in Section 7 establishes that both
the expressions were used by the Parliament, in this enactment, as inter-       G
changeable concepts. Sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 7,
insofar as relevant, read thus :

        "7. Functions of the Corporations. - (1) Subject to the rules, if any,
        made by the Central Government in this behalf, it shall be the
        function of each of the Corporations to provide, safe, efficient, H
    200                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A           adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated, air transport
            services, whether internal or international or both, and the Cor-
            porations shall so exercise their powers as to secure that the air
            transport services are developed to the best advantage and, in
            particular, so exercise those powers as to secure that the services
            are provided at reasonable charges.
B
            (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred by
            sub-section ( 1), each of the Corporations shall, in particular, have
            pow~r--n


                                                             (Emphasis added)
c
           The first part of sub-section (1) of Section 7 speaks of the functions
    of the Corporation while the latter part speaks of the powers of the
    Corporation being exercised for a proper performance of its functions. So
    far so good. But then sub-section (2) refers to the functions in sub-section
D   (1) as powers conferred upon the Corporation. It must be remembered
    that Section 7(1) does not purport to confer any powers upon the Corpora-
    tion; it only sets out its functions and then says that the Corporation shall
    exercise its powers so as to perform its functions effectively. Thus, when
    sub-section (2) speaks of powers conferred by sub-section (1), it is obvious-
    ly speaking of the functions of the Corporation but referring to them as
E   "powers". It indeed seeks to confer some more powers upon the Corpora-
    tion, viz., those specified in clauses (a) to(!). Clauses (a) to (1) are indeed
    an elaboration and particularisation of the functions referred to sub-section
    (1). The language employed in sub-section (2) of Section 7 thus demolishes ;
    the distinction sought to be drawn between powers and functions of the ·
F   Corporation. To reiterate, it is erroneous to think that the Corporation has .
    no other functions except those specified in Section 7. In the context of the
    Air Corporations Act, the distinction sought to be drawn between the
    powers and functions is unsustainable and unreal. A reference to certain
     other provisions of the Act including Sections 15 and 15-A goes indeed to
G   re-inforce this view. Once we arrive at this conclusion, it follows that the
    directions in question do pertain to "the exercise and performance by the
     Corporation of its functions" within the meaning of Section 34(1) and,
    therefore, valid.

          Sri Bhat, learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation submitted
H   further that the Air India Corporation being a "State" within the meaning
-~




                 AIR INDIA v. B.R. AGE [B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.]               201

     of Article 12, it is bound by the discipline of and the commands of Part-III   A
     of the Constitution which contains Article 16( 4). What the Central Govern-
     ment did by way of the impugned directions, he says, was only to remind
     the Corporation of its obligation under Article 16(4) and no more. In view
     of the opinion expressed by us on the meaning and content of Section
     34(1), we need not express any opinion of this submission.
                                                                                    B
            For the above reasons, the appeals are allowed, the judgment unde~
     appeal is set aside and the directions issued by the Central Government
     which were impugned in the Writ Petition (C) No. 1279 of 1978 on the file
     of the Bombay High Court are held to be within the four corners of Section
     34(1) of the Air Corporations Act and, therefore, valid and effective. For     C
     the same reasons, Writ Petition (C) Nos. 145-148 of 1980 are dismissed.
     No costs.

     T.N.A.                            Appeals allowed and petitions dismissed.